Intel started its "Sandy Bridge" LGA1155 family with two processors geared for overclocking, the Core i7-2600K, at a $320 price-point, and Core i5-2500K at around $210. Both are extremely successful products, among the two the Core i5-2500K struck a price-performance sweet-spot, while the Core i7-2600K became the ideal chip to build high-end gaming PCs with. Around the time when AMD was releasing its AMD FX processor family, Intel released the new Core i7-2700K. This chip didn't necessarily replace the i7-2600K, but took a price point slightly higher than it. According to a CPU World report, Intel is readying a new sweet-spot processor geared for overclocking, the Core i5-2550K.

With a retail channel part number BX80623I52550K and OEM part number CM806230121300, the Core i5-2550K was added to the MDDS database. It will carry the S-spec code SR0QH. The exact clock speed of this chip is not known, but CPU World expects it to be 3.40 GHz. Based on the Sandy Bridge LGA1155 package, the Core i5-2550K will feature four cores, 256 KB L2 cache per core, 6 MB shared L3 cache, integrated dual-channel DDR3 IMC, , integrated PCI-Express 2.0 root complex, and TDP of 95W. We expect this not to necessarily displace the i5-2500K, but occupy a price-point slightly above it. Let's say, $239-$249, just to heat things up for the AMD FX-8150.

well considering the 2700k isn't just a higher-clocked 2600k, I kinda expect this to be more than just a higher-clocked 2500k. Not really sure of the differences between the 2600k and 2700k, but from what I read from what Qubit posted about the 2700k, he'd be the person I'd ask about the differences as he seems to have done the background work while doing his C2D>I7 upgrade.

Everyone I know with a 2500K can clock it easily to 3.8 or 4.0Ghz on stock volts, if not clock it even higher. I don't understand why Intel doesn't release one clocked that high at stock. They run very cool and appear to be stable at that clock, and a stock 3.8Ghz SB 25XX would surely sell like mad.

In order for 2500k to stay below 95 watts, clocks and voltages need to be set accordingly, the 95 watts being at 3.3Ghz 1.200V linpack 64bit (+int gFx ~15W incl.), so 2550 should have lower VID.

Click to expand...

That isn't how it works. Processors are labeled in thermal/power envelopes or ranges. So anything over 65w is labelled as a 95w processor. Just because the processor says 95w, that doesn't mean it is actually using 95w. It could be using 70w and it would still be labelled as a 95w processor.

The 2550K will likely use more power than the 2500K, it could be 75w while the 2500K is using 70w, both would still be labelled as 95w.

I'm guessing since this isn't even a new stepping that there might be some slight better binning, but to a normal consumer that isn't using extreme cooling it won't make one bit of difference. And with 2500Ks easily doing 4.0GHz all day long, I don't think there is much point to this processor.

That isn't how it works. Processors are labeled in thermal/power envelopes or ranges. So anything over 65w is labelled as a 95w processor. Just because the processor says 95w, that doesn't mean it is actually using 95w. It could be using 70w and it would still be labelled as a 95w processor.

The 2550K will likely use more power than the 2500K, it could be 75w while the 2500K is using 70w, both would still be labelled as 95w.

I'm guessing since this isn't even a new stepping that there might be some slight better binning, but to a normal consumer that isn't using extreme cooling it won't make one bit of difference. And with 2500Ks easily doing 4.0GHz all day long, I don't think there is much point to this processor.

Click to expand...

Of course not.

The only reason to release an identical product under a different name is to get the people who own the first product to buy the second.

I foresee the poor masses upgrading from the 2500k to the 2550k.

Usually, if I like the company I'll make an excuse for it saying that it needs to burn off chips and has to take such measures.. but in Intel's case, that's ridiculous. 2500ks are selling like flapjacks.

Intel is smart. Instead of raising the prices on their current lineup due to a lack of real competition, they change the model number a bit and increase the price. I hope many people buy this over the 2500K.

The only reason to release an identical product under a different name is to get the people who own the first product to buy the second.

I foresee the poor masses upgrading from the 2500k to the 2550k.

Usually, if I like the company I'll make an excuse for it saying that it needs to burn off chips and has to take such measures.. but in Intel's case, that's ridiculous. 2500ks are selling like flapjacks.

Oh, I foresee more such slight evil from Intel in the next decade.

Click to expand...

I don't think they are doing it to get people with 2500Ks to upgrade to 2550Ks. The "poor" masses don't upgrade CPUs, and the ones that do upgrade CPUs know that the 2500K with an unlocked multiplier will do the same as this 2550K.

They are releasing the 2550K so that they can basically sell the same product at a slightly higher price to make more money off the poor masses that are just now upgrading to SandyBridge and don't know that there really is no difference and don't know the 2500K can do everything the 2550K can do just by upping the multiplier yourself.

In some ways yes it is the same chip as the current 2500ks, but just like in the case of 2600k vs 2700k, the 27 is higher binned and clocks higher than the CURRENT 26s, so unless you have one of the earlier 25s the likelihood of you getting a highly clockable 25k once the 2550k is around will be much less likely indeed. This is what i would imagine anyway, just because we have seen this already with the 2700k.

loads of people havent yet upgraded to SB but will likely due to BD's poor performance... so what better way to do that than to get the 2550K.
Why buy the "old" 2500K when there is a new kid on the block for probably not much more? and it gives extra incentive too, I mean its new and shiny

Well, yeah - that is some kind of average power envelope , not power maximum in Linpack or other super demanding app. Same is true for the actual voltage, cause it is not fixed , but changes rapidly according CPU load. So who is going to say that there is a difference between i5 2500k and i5 2550k, when CPU multiplier is unlocked?

Probally cherry picked 2500k's if i'm right it will oc better with lowrr core voltage, i gues we have to wait for reviews

Click to expand...

You win.

2500K aimed at gamers -> 2550K aimed at gamers

We already know that the 2500K is on par with the 2600K/2700K in the majority of gaming scenarios...so the reviews will basically show:
1.The 2500K/2550K still reigns as a bang-per-buck CPU, and
2.Is still a better prospect (for the target audience) than Bulldozer

Free publicity and another opportunity for the tech forums to cue up the Benny Hill music for it's competitor, all for the vast sum of...a CPUID change and some automated binning time which may, or may not be required*

* I'm pretty certain that most (if not all) 2500-2700's could have been released with at least 3.8+ G base frequency and still not affect vCore/VID/TDP to any great extent.

The only two gains we are likely to see here is lower tdp and/or voltage for any given clock when compared to a 2500k, and higher overclockability. Like i said before, the 26k nowadays (not the earlier ones) are hitting a wall at 4.7 - 4.8ghz all because the higher binned chips are now 2700ks which seem to geberally hit 5-5.2ghz. For tye average joe they wont care but for those of us that overclock its worth the extra few bucks. Im betting my left nut that this is the same process in regards to the 2500k and 2550k. cant wait for the benchies since alot of 25ks oc higher than 26ks. Time will tell i suppose.